greyelm
Malcolm
I love my Summar, it's an easy way to get that vintage look.

Melvin
Flim Forever!
rogerzilla
Well-known
It's a sharp lens, maybe as sharp as a 'cron at f/5.6. I have some shots which you could cut yourself on. Flare is its real problem due to the lack of coating.
B-9
Devin Bro
Roger is that first shot without a filter? Beautiful capture!
rogerzilla
Well-known
Yes, it's a straight shot and a commercial print on Kodak 400 chromogenic film. The texture of the undergrowth is due to frost.
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
Fort Veldhuis, 2009. Leica IIIc and Summar, probably Kodak BW400CN
Indeed; No complaints about sharpness when stopped down to f/5.6 and smaller

Indeed; No complaints about sharpness when stopped down to f/5.6 and smaller

B-9
Devin Bro
Thanks for the info Roger :]
I especially like the flare of the setting/rising sun it really gives the image its dreamy quality.
Im thoroughly impressed with everyones photo's!
Cant wait to finish my test roll with my new Summar and post a few!
I especially like the flare of the setting/rising sun it really gives the image its dreamy quality.
Im thoroughly impressed with everyones photo's!
Cant wait to finish my test roll with my new Summar and post a few!
rdeleskie
Well-known
Lovely pix here. This lens is very special.


bigeye
Well-known
Oooh Roger!
That first B&W shot is superb!
I second that!
Brian Legge
Veteran
I haven't shot any color with it yet, but I'm really loving the Summar.
Its been much sharper than I expected. I think this was shot around f/2.8. It would probably be sharper if I hadn't shot FP4 at 400 thinking I had Tri-X loaded.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5519435494/
Not much flare shooting into the sun. This was with a Hoya filter on the lens as well.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5519437324/
At the same time, the lens still has a wonderful, older feeling to it. The lower contrast works nicely for me.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5521439819/
Even works well when photographing company events, like those days in the lunch room making ice cream with liquid nitrogen. Love the bokeh I get with this lens - it hasn't been distracting at all.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5522029670
To be totally honest, I didn't think I was going to like this lens. I'm not big on soft lenses, swirly bokeh, excessive flare... and it turns out I haven't had issues with any of that yet. Maybe I've just been lucky with what I was shooting or perhaps the lens is better condition than most, but I'm seriously falling for this Summar!.
Its been much sharper than I expected. I think this was shot around f/2.8. It would probably be sharper if I hadn't shot FP4 at 400 thinking I had Tri-X loaded.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5519435494/
Not much flare shooting into the sun. This was with a Hoya filter on the lens as well.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5519437324/
At the same time, the lens still has a wonderful, older feeling to it. The lower contrast works nicely for me.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5521439819/
Even works well when photographing company events, like those days in the lunch room making ice cream with liquid nitrogen. Love the bokeh I get with this lens - it hasn't been distracting at all.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5522029670
To be totally honest, I didn't think I was going to like this lens. I'm not big on soft lenses, swirly bokeh, excessive flare... and it turns out I haven't had issues with any of that yet. Maybe I've just been lucky with what I was shooting or perhaps the lens is better condition than most, but I'm seriously falling for this Summar!.
rogerzilla
Well-known
The ideal subject for the Summar is flowers, specifically bluebells (which have theiur own "glow" already because they're slightly fluorescent). So you need to go down to the woods in late April.
Not my pics, but
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1348850
Not my pics, but
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1348850
hookonclassic
Member
Shot recently with Summar on IIIa with an old leitz black rim yellow (factor of 2) filter on 400Tmax. Like the old vintage feel to it. Lens can be quite sharp if you nail it right, especially at the center.



je2a3
je

Fed3a + Summar
APX100/Diafine
Brian Legge
Veteran
A few more:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5779402553
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5779402883
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5519435494/
..and into the sun to see what sort of flaring we get:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5519437324
I'm still loving this lens!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5779402553

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5779402883

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5519435494/
..and into the sun to see what sort of flaring we get:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5519437324
I'm still loving this lens!
rogerzilla
Well-known
I've just shot a semi-scientific (heavy tripod, cable release, USAF test chart at 2 metres) comparison of the Summar, Summicron DR and Elmar red scale at f/2 (where applicable), f/4 and f/8. I'll post the results when the film is developed but I *think* the Summar may surprise everyone at f/4 and f/8, although the Summicron DR is legendary.
One pleasing thing is that all three lenses focused exactly the same with the rangefinder. Originally I was going to scale focus, using a tape measure from the film plane, but since there was perfect agreement (and I've previously checked the rangefinder with at least one of the lenses and a tape measure), I decided the focus was accurate enough anyway. The M focusing patch (sorry, I know this is an LTM board) is much more accurate if you use it as a split-image rather than as a coincidence device; the latter is very inexact.
My unscientific opinion based on shooting with the Summar is that it is the sharpest of my 50mm lenses - right down to film grain level at f/4. Here's a small unsharpened 100% scan at 3600ppi. That's a six FOOT by four FOOT print.
One pleasing thing is that all three lenses focused exactly the same with the rangefinder. Originally I was going to scale focus, using a tape measure from the film plane, but since there was perfect agreement (and I've previously checked the rangefinder with at least one of the lenses and a tape measure), I decided the focus was accurate enough anyway. The M focusing patch (sorry, I know this is an LTM board) is much more accurate if you use it as a split-image rather than as a coincidence device; the latter is very inexact.
My unscientific opinion based on shooting with the Summar is that it is the sharpest of my 50mm lenses - right down to film grain level at f/4. Here's a small unsharpened 100% scan at 3600ppi. That's a six FOOT by four FOOT print.
Last edited:
rogerzilla
Well-known
Here you go: how sharp is a Summar?
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107281
The answer is "very", but avoid f/2 if you possibly can.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107281
The answer is "very", but avoid f/2 if you possibly can.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Here you go: how sharp is a Summar?
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107281
The answer is "very", but avoid f/2 if you possibly can.
But does anyone choose a Summar for sharpness, or to use stopped down?
kosta_g
Well-known
gorgeous shots, this is a nice lens that has a wonderful feel to its signature.
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
pity they are so hard to find without damaged glass (scatches, cleaningmarks etc)
rogerzilla
Well-known
You have to find one that isn't scratched - apart from that, they clean up pretty well because there are no coatings to deteriorate. CRR Luton will polish and (if you want, although I can't see the point) coat a damaged front element on a Summar.
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.